Al Gore: Obama must ‘get moving’

Former Vice President Al Gore said Thursday that it’s time for President Barack Obama to “get moving” on global warming.

“I deeply respect our president, and I am grateful for the steps that he has taken, but we cannot have four more years of mentioning this occasionally and saying it’s too bad that the Congress can’t act,” Gore said in a speech in New York City at the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Gore continued: “I know how tough it is. He’s done more in first four years than any other administration has ever done, and I respect that and acknowledge that. But the time has long since passed for us to get moving.”

The former vice president introduced New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who later spoke about Hurricane Sandy and the need for the city to prepare for future storms.

“In national government, to use a computer term, our democracy has been hacked, … and when the large carbon polluters and their ideological allies tell the members of Congress to jump, they do say, ‘How high?’ And we need leadership in the executive branch as well,” Gore said.

Gore said lawmakers should view Bloomberg as an example and said that Sandy was related to global warming.

“What will it take for the national government to wake up as this mayor has been telling us to do?” Gore asked. “This storm was related to global warming.”

He added: “Dirty energy causes dirty weather.”

It’s not the first time Gore has criticized Obama’s energy policies. In June 2011, Gore criticized Obama’s environmental record in a 7,000-word article in Rolling Stone.

Readers' Comments (7)

Former Vice President Gore is an enviro-whacko religious zealot, using the fiction of man-made global warming in his ongoing struggle to be relevant. He might have even had some credibility, if his personal lifestyle matched his big mouth. Mr. Gore sanctimoniously looks down his nose on society for having an over-large 'carbon footprint, while at the same time, he flies around on fuel-swilling private jets, owns several mansions that burn all sorts of electricity, and heats his numerous swimming pools with enough gas to service an entire housing subdivision. The concept of man-made Global Warming hysteria is a scam, built entirely on skewed, cherry-picked and outright false 'data' designed to fleece the gullible out of their money and their freedoms. (As if losing either would have any impact on such a global event, even if it was happening, BTW.) It's bad enough to have to deal with the usual hucksters disguised as scientists, without having to deal with this fat hypocrite as well.

Does the liberal insanity ever cease? Here we have Al Gore, the premiere Obama crony socialist, who has enriched himself to the tune of $100,000,000 by investing in taxpayer, subsidized, green energy firms and the greedy ******* is still not satisfied. I like the way this eco-commie ingrate tosses Bill Clinton underneath the the buss; "He's (Obama) done more in four years..."

While I'd in no way try to defend Gore, because politicians are the furthest thing from scientists, exactly how do you define 'hucksters disguised as scientists'?

I mean, I can look at articles like

http://www.nature.com/n...

Or

http://www.sciencemag.o...

So is Tim P. Barnett not actually a scientist? So is Cynthia Rosenzweig also not a scientist? How do you determine who qualifies as a 'scientist' or who is just a 'hucksters disguised as scientists'? Because when I'm looking at published histories in journals like Nature, PNAS, or Science, I have a hard time catagorically saying 'these people are not scientists' because they come to the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

What about David Karoly? Does Simon Donner (a professor at my school, no less), not deserve to be called a scientist because he had this paper published in PNAS? http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

Honestly I really do have no love of Al Gore, because politicians make exceedingly poor scientists, but somehow I get the feeling that you ignore very real scientists just because you dislike their conclusions.

Argue all you want that there is a currently open discussion as to the eventual total impacts of climate change, but the idea that the only scientists saying 'climate change is real' are 'hucksters' is absurd in the highest order. You're calling quite a lot of people from all over the world (not just the US) liars. That seems an incredibly hard charge to properly levy. Do you have some expertise in the subject, or do you really just call any scientist, no matter how extensive their published background is, or their educational history, 'hucksters' when they conclude 'global warming is real'?

Are you sure this isn't a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the same type that causes creationists to believe that they can call evolution wrong because they watched a Kent Hovind special, or new age fans calling relativity a lie because they read a Michio Kaku book?

While I'd in no way try to defend Gore, because politicians are the furthest thing from scientists, exactly how do you define 'hucksters disguised as scientists'?

I mean, I can look at articles like

http://www.nature.com/n...

Or

http://www.sciencemag.o...

So is Tim P. Barnett not actually a scientist? So is Cynthia Rosenzweig also not a scientist? How do you determine who qualifies as a 'scientist' or who is just a 'hucksters disguised as scientists'? Because when I'm looking at published histories in journals like Nature, PNAS, or Science, I have a hard time catagorically saying 'these people are not scientists' because they come to the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

What about David Karoly? Does Simon Donner (a professor at my school, no less), not deserve to be called a scientist because he had this paper published in PNAS? http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

Honestly I really do have no love of Al Gore, because politicians make exceedingly poor scientists, but somehow I get the feeling that you ignore very real scientists just because you dislike their conclusions.

Argue all you want that there is a currently open discussion as to the eventual total impacts of climate change, but the idea that the only scientists saying 'climate change is real' are 'hucksters' is absurd in the highest order. You're calling quite a lot of people from all over the world (not just the US) liars. That seems an incredibly hard charge to properly levy. Do you have some expertise in the subject, or do you really just call any scientist, no matter how extensive their published background is, or their educational history, 'hucksters' when they conclude 'global warming is real'?

Are you sure this isn't a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the same type that causes creationists to believe that they can call evolution wrong because they watched a Kent Hovind special, or new age fans calling relativity a lie because they read a Michio Kaku book?

------------------------------------------------------

Cops can be crooked... Politicians can be corrupt... Priests can be tainted... What makes a scientist any less corruptible? Are you suggesting that they all got their degrees handed down to them from God, and that they speak with HIS voice on all things factual? Are you saying that scientists are incorruptible, and immune to the allure of money and fame? Sorry, but the facts are to be found in the emails from the University of East Anglia in which "scientists" openly discuss the fraud and how to make it stick, in spite of results that did not match their pre-concieved notions. The facts are found when you actually look at the methods used to reach the false conclusions using cherry-picked data and doctored photos. The facts are found when you consider that the "scientists" are not required to prove anything, because their theories will not come to pass until long after you, me and them are DEAD. I call that a breeding ground for a major fraud, wouldn't you?

Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb in 1968, with dire predictions of famine and disaster that was accepted as FACT by the same sort of twits that believe man can change the climate by existing. Were the people that accepted Dr. Ehrlich's 'truth' idiots, naive or willfully blind? Nothing of what Dr. Ehrlich wrote came to pass, but he was and still is a beacon of wisdom with the loony-left. Do you think that, back in 1968, we should have instituted radical steps to (for example) forcibly limit family or impose heavy taxes on people who wished to have children? I'm certain, that if the internet existed, along with this forum back then, we would be having this same conversation with you advocating exactly that sort of policy, and me defending the family and the stupidity of Dr. Ehrlich's populist pseudo-science. Sorry, but I do not trust any science that allows a politician to tell me what I can and cannot do, and then tries to seperate me from my money, in addition to my freedom for the sake of a theory built on shaky science. There is nothing wrong with sensible steps to protect the environment. I have no problem with steps to reduce air, land and water pollution, as long as it is done within reason, and with the understanding that nothing is 100% clean and never will be. But the Global Warming crowd actually think that life and energy can be created without waste or a whiff of smoke, and that they believe nirvana can be attained if they can just tax mankind back into the stone age or into voluntary extinction. I call that whacko... plain and simple, because most, if not all their solutions are unreasonable and unworkable. The only reason climate pseudo "scientists" are given any latitude is that politicians see a gold-mine, and a gullible population willing to give up everything for the sake of a theory that is unprovable and based on anecdotal evidence. This is the same sort of tactic used by Televagelists to seperate their own gullible audiences from their money... but unlike them, politicians can FORCE me (and you) to comply with taxes and lost freedoms for the sake of a theory that may or may not happen a hundred years from now. I call that insane in the same way you and I would call lunacy from a culture that tossed virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods. Sorry, but the theory of man-made global warming is complete and utter TWADDLE! The hucksters don't even refer to it as global warming anymore... it's 'climate change' now; defined as any climate event that does not match the lyrics of Camelot. ("The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot. By order, summer lingers through September In Camelot.") Catch my drift?

Am I an expert on climate? No... But I am also not an expert on population growth, and I think Dr. Ehrlich... an EXPERT with a doctorate on that very subject is a fool and a fraud. I don't need a degree to recognize a huckster... Is our climate changing? Possibly. Only a fool would think that our seasons and our climate is static. History has experienced all sorts of changes, from ice-ages to periods of extreme warmth as recently as a few hundred years ago... long before my car was built. What the climate will doin the next ten years, or the next hundred or the next thousand or the next million years cannot be predicted or (I might add... stopped.) Anyone who tells you that we can change the climate one way or the other with a tax or a requirement that you change how you live is LYING TO YOU. Let me repeat that... NOBODY CAN STOP THE CLIMATE FROM CHANGING... LEAST OF ALL WITH A TAX.

Okay... now you know where I am coming from and you can take it or leave it and list for me all the scientists who currently float above you in the sky like Saints, but you will not convince me, any more than I can convince you that global warming is a scam, or that either of us can convince a Muslim that Allah isn't real. That is the essence of faith, and Global Warming depends on that sort of emotion to survive and perpetuate itself. The only difference between you and me is I don't want your money and I don't want to control your life for the sake of something that may or may not happen a hundred or a thousand years from now. If you want to retreat into the woods and live like the Unibomber... cool.... just leave me out of your lunacy.

Fat Al after coming under criticism for not making his Tennessee home "green" after doing so subsequently used more energy than it did before. Now he owns a mansion on the beach despite the obvious threats of rising seas and jets sets around the world in his private plane desperately still trying to relevant. Pathetic.